DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT Special Publication 800-56A, Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The attached DRAFT document (provided here for historical purposes) has been superseded by the following publication: Publication Number: NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-56A Revision 2 Title: Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key-Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography Publication Date: 05/13/2013 • Final Publication: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Ar2 (which links to http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-56Ar2.pdf). • Information on other NIST Computer Security Division publications and programs can be found at: http://csrc.nist.gov/ The following information was posted with the attached DRAFT document: Aug 20, 2012 SP 800-56 A Rev.1 DRAFT Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key-Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography (Draft Revision) NIST announces the release of draft revision of Special Publication 800-56A, Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography. SP 800-56A specifies key-establishment schemes based on the discrete logarithm problem over finite fields and elliptic curves, including several variations of Diffie-Hellman and MQV key establishment schemes. The revision is made on the March 2007 version. The main changes are listed in Appendix D. Please submit comments to 56A2012rev-comments @ nist.gov with "Comments on SP 800-56A (Revision)" in the subject line. The comment period closes on October 31, 2012. NIST Special Publication 800-56A Recommendation for Pair-Wise August 2012 Key-Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography (Draft Revision) Elaine Barker, Lily Chen, Miles Smid and Allen Roginsky C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y Abstract This Recommendation specifies key-establishment schemes based on the discrete logarithm problem over finite fields and elliptic curves, including several variations of Diffie-Hellman and MQV key establishment schemes. KEY WORDS: assurances; Diffie-Hellman; elliptic curve cryptography; finite field cryptography; key agreement; key confirmation; key derivation; key establishment; key management; key recovery; key transport; MQV. 2 Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the contributions by Rich Davis of the National Security Agency and Dustin Moody of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 3 Authority This document has been developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in furtherance of its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002, Public Law 107-347. NIST is responsible for developing standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements, for providing adequate information security for all agency operations and assets, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security systems. This Recommendation has been prepared for use by federal agencies. It may be used by nongovernmental organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright. (Attribution would be appreciated by NIST.) Nothing in this document should be taken to contradict standards and guidelines made mandatory and binding on federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under statutory authority. Nor should these guidelines be interpreted as altering or superseding the existing authorities of the Secretary of Commerce, Director of the OMB, or any other federal official. Conformance testing for implementations of this Recommendation will be conducted within the framework of the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) and the Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program(CAVP). The requirements of this Recommendation are indicated by the word “shall.” Some of these requirements may be out-of-scope for CMVP or CAVP validation testing, and thus are the responsibility of entities using, implementing, installing or configuring applications that incorporate this Recommendation. 4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 12 2. Scope and Purpose ............................................................................................... 12 3. Definitions, Symbols and Abbreviations ............................................................. 13 3.1 Definitions...................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Symbols and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 17 4. Overview of Key-Establishment Schemes........................................................... 22 4.1 Key Establishment Preparations .................................................................................... 23 4.2 Key Agreement Process................................................................................................. 25 4.3 DLC-based Key Transport Process................................................................................ 27 5. Cryptographic Elements ....................................................................................... 29 5.1 Cryptographic Hash Functions ...................................................................................... 29 5.2 Message Authentication Code (MAC) Algorithm......................................................... 29 5.2.1 MAC Tag Computation for Key Confirmation ................................................. 29 5.2.2 MAC Tag Verification for Key Confirmation................................................... 30 5.3 Random Number Generation ......................................................................................... 30 5.4 Nonces........................................................................................................................... 30 5.5 Domain Parameters........................................................................................................ 31 5.5.1 Domain Parameter Generation........................................................................... 31 5.5.1.1 FFC Domain Parameter Generation.................................................... 31 5.5.1.2 ECC Domain Parameter Generation................................................... 32 5.5.2 Assurances of Domain Parameter Validity........................................................ 34 5.5.3 Domain Parameter Management........................................................................ 34 5.6 Key-Establishment Key Pairs ........................................................................................ 34 5.6.1 Key-Pair Generation .......................................................................................... 35 5.6.1.1 FFC Key-Pair Generation ................................................................... 35 5.6.1.2 ECC Key-Pair Generation................................................................... 35 5.6.2 Required Assurances.......................................................................................... 35 5 5.6.2.1 Assurances Required by the Key Pair Owner..................................... 36 5.6.2.1.1 Owner Assurance of Correct Generation............................. 38 5.6.2.1.2 Owner Assurance of Private-Key Validity .......................... 38 5.6.2.1.3 Owner Assurance of Public-Key Validity ........................... 38 5.6.2.1.4 Owner Assurance of Pair-wise Consistency........................ 39 5.6.2.1.5 Owner Assurance of Possession of the Private Key ............ 41 5.6.2.2 Assurances Required by a Public Key Recipient................................ 41 5.6.2.2.1 Recipient Assurance of Static Public-Key Validity............. 42 5.6.2.2.2 Recipient Assurance of Ephemeral Public-Key Validity..... 43 5.6.2.2.3 Recipient Assurance of the Owner’s Possession of a Static Private Key........................................................................... 43 5.6.2.2.4 Recipient Assurance of the Owner’s Possession of an Ephemeral Private Key ........................................................ 45 5.6.2.3 Public Key Validation Routines.......................................................... 46 5.6.2.3.1 FFC Full Public-Key Validation Routine ............................ 46 5.6.2.3.2 ECC Full Public-Key Validation Routine............................ 46 5.6.2.3.3 ECC Partial Public-Key Validation Routine........................ 47 5.6.3 Key Pair Management........................................................................................ 48 5.6.3.1 Common Requirements on Static and Ephemeral Key Pairs.............. 48 5.6.3.2 Specific Requirements on Static Key Pairs ........................................ 48 5.6.3.3 Specific Requirements on Ephemeral Key Pairs ................................ 49 5.7 DLC Primitives .............................................................................................................. 50 5.7.1 Diffie-Hellman Primitives ................................................................................. 50 5.7.1.1 Finite Field Cryptography Diffie-Hellman (FFC DH) Primitive........ 50 5.7.1.2 Elliptic Curve Cryptography Cofactor Diffie-Hellman (ECC CDH) Primitive 51 5.7.2 MQV Primitives................................................................................................. 51 5.7.2.1 Finite Field Cryptography MQV (FFC MQV) Primitive ................... 51 5.7.2.1.1 MQV2 Form of the FFC MQV Primitive............................ 52 5.7.2.1.2 MQV1 Form of the FFC MQV Primitive............................ 53 6 5.7.2.2 ECC MQV Associate Value Function
Recommended publications
  • Bilinear Map Cryptography from Progressively Weaker Assumptions

    Bilinear Map Cryptography from Progressively Weaker Assumptions

    Full version of an extended abstract published in Proceedings of CT-RSA 2013, Springer-Verlag, Feb. 2013. Available from the IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive as Report 2012/687. The k-BDH Assumption Family: Bilinear Map Cryptography from Progressively Weaker Assumptions Karyn Benson, Hovav Shacham ∗ Brent Watersy University of California, San Diego University of Texas at Austin fkbenson, [email protected] [email protected] February 4, 2013 Abstract Over the past decade bilinear maps have been used to build a large variety of cryptosystems. In addition to new functionality, we have concurrently seen the emergence of many strong assump- tions. In this work, we explore how to build bilinear map cryptosystems under progressively weaker assumptions. We propose k-BDH, a new family of progressively weaker assumptions that generalizes the de- cisional bilinear Diffie-Hellman (DBDH) assumption. We give evidence in the generic group model that each assumption in our family is strictly weaker than the assumptions before it. DBDH has been used for proving many schemes secure, notably identity-based and functional encryption schemes; we expect that our k-BDH will lead to generalizations of many such schemes. To illustrate the usefulness of our k-BDH family, we construct a family of selectively secure Identity-Based Encryption (IBE) systems based on it. Our system can be viewed as a generalization of the Boneh-Boyen IBE, however, the construction and proof require new ideas to fit the family. We then extend our methods to produces hierarchical IBEs and CCA security; and give a fully secure variant. In addition, we discuss the opportunities and challenges of building new systems under our weaker assumption family.
  • Circuit-Extension Handshakes for Tor Achieving Forward Secrecy in a Quantum World

    Circuit-Extension Handshakes for Tor Achieving Forward Secrecy in a Quantum World

    Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies ; 2016 (4):219–236 John M. Schanck*, William Whyte, and Zhenfei Zhang Circuit-extension handshakes for Tor achieving forward secrecy in a quantum world Abstract: We propose a circuit extension handshake for 2. Anonymity: Some one-way authenticated key ex- Tor that is forward secure against adversaries who gain change protocols, such as ntor [13], guarantee that quantum computing capabilities after session negotia- the unauthenticated peer does not reveal their iden- tion. In doing so, we refine the notion of an authen- tity just by participating in the protocol. Such pro- ticated and confidential channel establishment (ACCE) tocols are deemed one-way anonymous. protocol and define pre-quantum, transitional, and post- 3. Forward Secrecy: A protocol provides forward quantum ACCE security. These new definitions reflect secrecy if the compromise of a party’s long-term the types of adversaries that a protocol might be de- key material does not affect the secrecy of session signed to resist. We prove that, with some small mod- keys negotiated prior to the compromise. Forward ifications, the currently deployed Tor circuit extension secrecy is typically achieved by mixing long-term handshake, ntor, provides pre-quantum ACCE security. key material with ephemeral keys that are discarded We then prove that our new protocol, when instantiated as soon as the session has been established. with a post-quantum key encapsulation mechanism, Forward secret protocols are a particularly effective tool achieves the stronger notion of transitional ACCE se- for resisting mass surveillance as they resist a broad curity. Finally, we instantiate our protocol with NTRU- class of harvest-then-decrypt attacks.
  • Implementation and Performance Evaluation of XTR Over Wireless Network

    Implementation and Performance Evaluation of XTR Over Wireless Network

    Implementation and Performance Evaluation of XTR over Wireless Network By Basem Shihada [email protected] Dept. of Computer Science 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (519) 888-4567 ext. 6238 CS 887 Final Project 19th of April 2002 Implementation and Performance Evaluation of XTR over Wireless Network 1. Abstract Wireless systems require reliable data transmission, large bandwidth and maximum data security. Most current implementations of wireless security algorithms perform lots of operations on the wireless device. This result in a large number of computation overhead, thus reducing the device performance. Furthermore, many current implementations do not provide a fast level of security measures such as client authentication, authorization, data validation and data encryption. XTR is an abbreviation of Efficient and Compact Subgroup Trace Representation (ECSTR). Developed by Arjen Lenstra & Eric Verheul and considered a new public key cryptographic security system that merges high level of security GF(p6) with less number of computation GF(p2). The claim here is that XTR has less communication requirements, and significant computation advantages, which indicate that XTR is suitable for the small computing devices such as, wireless devices, wireless internet, and general wireless applications. The hoping result is a more flexible and powerful secure wireless network that can be easily used for application deployment. This project presents an implementation and performance evaluation to XTR public key cryptographic system over wireless network. The goal of this project is to develop an efficient and portable secure wireless network, which perform a variety of wireless applications in a secure manner. The project literately surveys XTR mathematical and theoretical background as well as system implementation and deployment over wireless network.
  • Guidelines on Cryptographic Algorithms Usage and Key Management

    Guidelines on Cryptographic Algorithms Usage and Key Management

    EPC342-08 Version 7.0 4 November 2017 [X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence Distribution: Publicly available GUIDELINES ON CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHMS USAGE AND KEY MANAGEMENT Abstract This document defines guidelines on cryptographic algorithms usage and key management. Document Reference EPC342-08 Issue Version 7.0 Date of Issue 22 November 2017 Reason for Issue Maintenance of document Produced by EPC Authorised by EPC Document History This document was first produced by ECBS as TR 406, with its latest ECBS version published in September 2005. The document has been handed over to the EPC which is responsible for its yearly maintenance. DISCLAIMER: Whilst the European Payments Council (EPC) has used its best endeavours to make sure that all the information, data, documentation (including references) and other material in the present document are accurate and complete, it does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. EPC will not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature arising directly or indirectly from use of the information, data, documentation or other material in the present document. Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30A – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 – Fax: +32 2 736 49 88 Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 – www.epc-cep.eu – [email protected] © 2016 Copyright European Payments Council (EPC) AISBL: Reproduction for non-commercial purposes is authorised, with acknowledgement of the source Table of Content MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................. 5 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 7 1.1 Scope of the document ...................................................... 7 1.2 Document structure .......................................................... 7 1.3 Recommendations ............................................................ 8 1.4 Implementation best practices .........................................
  • On Robust Key Agreement Based on Public Key Authentication Feng Hao Thales E-Security, Cambridge, UK Feng.Hao@Thales-Esecurity.Com

    On Robust Key Agreement Based on Public Key Authentication Feng Hao Thales E-Security, Cambridge, UK [email protected]

    1 On Robust Key Agreement Based on Public Key Authentication Feng Hao Thales E-Security, Cambridge, UK [email protected] Abstract—This paper discusses public-key authenticated key Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) [10]. Using ECC essen- agreement protocols. First, we critically analyze several authen- tially replaces the underlying (multiplicative) cyclic group ticated key agreement protocols and uncover various theoretical with another (additive) cyclic group defined over some elliptic and practical flaws. In particular, we present two new attacks on the HMQV protocol, which is currently being standardized curve. The essence of the protocol remains unchanged. by IEEE P1363. The first attack presents a counterexample to The acute problem with the Diffie-Hellman key agreement invalidate the basic authentication in HMQV. The second attack is that it is unauthenticated [2]. While secure against passive is applicable to almost all past schemes, despite that many of attackers, the protocol is inherently vulnerable to active attacks them have formal security proofs. These attacks highlight the such as the man-in-the-middle attack [6]. This is a serious lim- difficulty to design a crypto protocol correctly and suggest the caution one should always take. itation, which for many years has been motivating researchers We further point out that many of the design errors are caused to find a solution [3]–[5], [7], [9], [11], [13], [20]. by sidestepping an important engineering principle, namely To add authentication, we must start with assuming some “Do not assume that a message you receive has a particular shared secret. In general, there are two approaches.
  • The Whole Is Less Than the Sum of Its Parts: Constructing More Efficient Lattice-Based Akes Rafael Del Pino, Vadim Lyubashevsky, David Pointcheval

    The Whole Is Less Than the Sum of Its Parts: Constructing More Efficient Lattice-Based Akes Rafael Del Pino, Vadim Lyubashevsky, David Pointcheval

    The Whole is Less Than the Sum of Its Parts: Constructing More Efficient Lattice-Based AKEs Rafael del Pino, Vadim Lyubashevsky, David Pointcheval To cite this version: Rafael del Pino, Vadim Lyubashevsky, David Pointcheval. The Whole is Less Than the Sum of Its Parts: Constructing More Efficient Lattice-Based AKEs. SCN 2016 - 10th International Conference Security and Cryptography for Networks, Aug 2016, Amalfi, Italy. pp.273 - 291, 10.1007/978-3-319- 44618-9_15. hal-01378005 HAL Id: hal-01378005 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01378005 Submitted on 8 Oct 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Whole is Less than the Sum of its Parts: Constructing More Efficient Lattice-Based AKEs? Rafael del Pino1;2;3, Vadim Lyubashevsky4, and David Pointcheval3;2;1 1 INRIA, Paris 2 Ecole´ Normale Sup´erieure,Paris 3 CNRS 4 IBM Research Zurich Abstract. Authenticated Key Exchange (AKE) is the backbone of internet security protocols such as TLS and IKE. A recent announcement by standardization bodies calling for a shift to quantum-resilient crypto has resulted in several AKE proposals from the research community. Be- cause AKE can be generically constructed by combining a digital signature scheme with public key encryption (or a KEM), most of these proposals focused on optimizing the known KEMs and left the authentication part to the generic combination with digital signatures.
  • 21. the Diffie-Hellman Problem

    21. the Diffie-Hellman Problem

    Chapter 21 The Diffie-Hellman Problem This is a chapter from version 2.0 of the book “Mathematics of Public Key Cryptography” by Steven Galbraith, available from http://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/˜sgal018/crypto- book/crypto-book.html The copyright for this chapter is held by Steven Galbraith. This book was published by Cambridge University Press in early 2012. This is the extended and corrected version. Some of the Theorem/Lemma/Exercise numbers may be different in the published version. Please send an email to [email protected] if youfind any mistakes. This chapter gives a thorough discussion of the computational Diffie-Hellman problem (CDH) and related computational problems. We give a number of reductions between computational problems, most significantly reductions from DLP to CDH. We explain self-correction of CDH oracles, study the static Diffie-Hellman problem, and study hard bits of the DLP and CDH. We always use multiplicative notation for groups in this chapter (except for in the Maurer reduction where some operations are specific to elliptic curves). 21.1 Variants of the Diffie-Hellman Problem We present some computational problems related to CDH, and prove reductions among them. The main result is to prove that CDH and Fixed-CDH are equivalent. Most of the results in this section apply to both algebraic groups (AG) and algebraic group quotients (AGQ) of prime orderr (some exceptions are Lemma 21.1.9, Lemma 21.1.16 and, later, Lemma 21.3.1). For the algebraic group quotientsG considered in this book then one can obtain all the results by lifting from the quotient to the covering groupG ′ and applying the results there.
  • Public-Key Cryptography

    Public-Key Cryptography

    Public-key Cryptogra; Theory and Practice ABHIJIT DAS Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur C. E. VENIMADHAVAN Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute ofScience, Bangalore PEARSON Chennai • Delhi • Chandigarh Upper Saddle River • Boston • London Sydney • Singapore • Hong Kong • Toronto • Tokyo Contents Preface xiii Notations xv 1 Overview 1 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Common Cryptographic Primitives 2 1.2.1 The Classical Problem: Secure Transmission of Messages 2 Symmetric-key or secret-key cryptography 4 Asymmetric-key or public-key cryptography 4 1.2.2 Key Exchange 5 1.2.3 Digital Signatures 5 1.2.4 Entity Authentication 6 1.2.5 Secret Sharing 8 1.2.6 Hashing 8 1.2.7 Certification 9 1.3 Public-key Cryptography 9 1.3.1 The Mathematical Problems 9 1.3.2 Realization of Key Pairs 10 1.3.3 Public-key Cryptanalysis 11 1.4 Some Cryptographic Terms 11 1.4.1 Models of Attacks 12 1.4.2 Models of Passive Attacks 12 1.4.3 Public Versus Private Algorithms 13 2 Mathematical Concepts 15 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 Sets, Relations and Functions 16 2.2.1 Set Operations 17 2.2.2 Relations 17 2.2.3 Functions 18 2.2.4 The Axioms of Mathematics 19 Exercise Set 2.2 20 2.3 Groups 21 2.3.1 Definition and Basic Properties . 21 2.3.2 Subgroups, Cosets and Quotient Groups 23 2.3.3 Homomorphisms 25 2.3.4 Generators and Orders 26 2.3.5 Sylow's Theorem 27 Exercise Set 2.3 29 2.4 Rings 31 2.4.1 Definition and Basic Properties 31 2.4.2 Subrings, Ideals and Quotient Rings 34 2.4.3 Homomorphisms 37 2.4.4
  • Polynomial Interpolation of the Generalized Diffie

    Polynomial Interpolation of the Generalized Diffie

    Polynomial interpolation of the generalized Diffie–Hellman and Naor–Reingold functions Thierry Mefenza, Damien Vergnaud To cite this version: Thierry Mefenza, Damien Vergnaud. Polynomial interpolation of the generalized Diffie–Hellman and Naor–Reingold functions. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, Springer Verlag, 2019, 87 (1), pp.75-85. 10.1007/s10623-018-0486-1. hal-01990394 HAL Id: hal-01990394 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01990394 Submitted on 10 May 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Polynomial Interpolation of the Generalized Diffie-Hellman and Naor-Reingold Functions Thierry Mefenza · Damien Vergnaud the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract In cryptography, for breaking the security of the Generalized Diffie- Hellman and Naor-Reingold functions, it would be sufficient to have polynomials with small weight and degree which interpolate these functions. We prove lower bounds on the degree and weight of polynomials interpolating these functions for many keys in several fixed points over a finite field. Keywords. Naor-Reingold function, Generalized Diffie-Hellman function, polyno- mial interpolation, finite fields. MSC2010. 11T71, 94A60 1 Introduction The security of most cryptographic protocols relies on some unproven compu- tational assumption which states that a well-defined computational problem is intractable (i.e.
  • Public-Key Cryptography

    Public-Key Cryptography

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/psapm/062 AMS SHORT COURSE LECTURE NOTES Introductory Survey Lectures published as a subseries of Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics Proceedings of Symposia in APPLIED MATHEMATICS Volume 62 Public-Key Cryptography American Mathematical Society Short Course January 13-14, 2003 Baltimore, Maryland Paul Garrett Daniel Lieman Editors ^tfEMAT , American Mathematical Society ^ Providence, Rhode Island ^VDED Editorial Board Mary Pugh Lenya Ryzhik Eitan Tadmor (Chair) LECTURE NOTES PREPARED FOR THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY SHORT COURSE PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY HELD IN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND JANUARY 13-14, 2003 The AMS Short Course Series is sponsored by the Society's Program Committee for National Meetings. The series is under the direction of the Short Course Subcommittee of the Program Committee for National Meetings. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 54C40, 14E20, 14G50, 11G20, 11T71, HYxx, 94Axx, 46E25, 20C20. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Public-key cryptography / Paul Garrett, Daniel Lieman, editors. p. cm. — (Proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics ; v. 62) Papers from a conference held at the 2003 Baltimore meeting of the American Mathematical Society. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8218-3365-0 (alk. paper) 1. Computers—Access control-—Congresses. 2. Public key cryptography—Congresses. I. Garrett, Paul, 1952— II. Lieman, Daniel, 1965- III. American Mathematical Society. IV. Series. QA76.9.A25P82 2005 005.8'2—dc22 2005048178 Copying and reprinting. Material in this book may be reproduced by any means for edu• cational and scientific purposes without fee or permission with the exception of reproduction by services that collect fees for delivery of documents and provided that the customary acknowledg• ment of the source is given.
  • The Odd Couple: MQV and HMQV

    The Odd Couple: MQV and HMQV

    The odd couple: MQV and HMQV Jean-Philippe Aumasson 1 / 49 Summary MQV = EC-DH-based key agreement protocol, I proposed by Menezes, Qu and Vanstone (1995), I improved with Law and Solinas (1998), I widely standardized (ANSI, ISO/IEC, IEEE), and recommended (NIST, NSA suite B). HMQV = variant of MQV, I proposed by Krawczyk (2005), I attacked by Menezes, I validity of attacks unclear. 2 / 49 References A. Menezes, M. Qu, S. Vanstone. Some new key agreement protocols providing implicit authentication. SAC’95. L. Law, A. Menezes, M. Qu, J. Solinas, S. Vanstone. An efficient protocol for authenticated key agreement. Design, Codes, and Cryptography, 2003. H. Krawczyk. HMQV: A high-performance secure Diffie-Hellman protocol. CRYPTO’ 05. Full version on ePrint (2005/176). A. Menezes. Another look at HMQV. ePrint (2005/205). Journal of Mathematical Cryptology, 2007. A. Menezes, B. Ustaoglu. On the importance of public-key validation in the MQV and HMQV key agreement protocols. INDOCRYPT’06. 3 / 49 Road map PART I I Key agreement protocols I Elliptic curves I The MQV protocols PART II I The “insecurity” of MQV I HMQV I The “insecurity” of HMQV CONCLUSION 4 / 49 PART I 5 / 49 Key agreement protocols 6 / 49 Taxonomy From the HAC. Key establishment is a protocol whereby a shared secret becomes available to two or more parties, for subsequent cryptographic use. A key transport protocol is a key establishment technique where one party creates or otherwise obtains a secret value, and securely transfers it to the other(s). A key agreement protocol is a key establishement in which a shared secret is derived by two (or more) parties as a function of information contributed by, or associated with, each of these, (ideally) such that no party can predetermine the resulting value.
  • NIST)  Quantum Computing Will Break Many Public-Key Cryptographic Algorithms/Schemes ◦ Key Agreement (E.G

    NIST)  Quantum Computing Will Break Many Public-Key Cryptographic Algorithms/Schemes ◦ Key Agreement (E.G

    Post Quantum Cryptography Team Presenter: Lily Chen National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Quantum computing will break many public-key cryptographic algorithms/schemes ◦ Key agreement (e.g. DH and MQV) ◦ Digital signatures (e.g. RSA and DSA) ◦ Encryption (e.g. RSA) These algorithms have been used to protect Internet protocols (e.g. IPsec) and applications (e.g.TLS) NIST is studying “quantum-safe” replacements This talk will focus on practical aspects ◦ For security, see Yi-Kai Liu’s talk later today ◦ Key establishment: ephemeral Diffie-Hellman ◦ Authentication: signature or pre-shared key Key establishment through RSA, DHE, or DH Client Server ◦ RSA – Client encrypts pre- master secret using server’s Client RSA public key Hello Server Hello Certificate* ◦ DHE – Ephemeral Diffie- ServerKeyExchange* Hellman CertificateRequest* ◦ DH – Client generates an ServerHelloDone ephemeral DH public value. Certificate* ClientKeyExchange* Pre-master secret is generated CertificateVerify* using server static public key {ChangeCipherSpec} Finished Server authentication {ChangeCipherSpec} ◦ RSA – implicit (by key Finished confirmation) ◦ DHE - signature Application data Application Data ◦ DH – implicit (by key confirmation) IKE ◦ A replacement of ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key agreement should have a fast key pair generation scheme ◦ If signatures are used for authentication, both signing and verifying need to be equally efficient TLS ◦ RSA - encryption replacement needs to have a fast encryption ◦ DHE – fast key pair generation and efficient signature verification ◦ DH – fast key pair generation Which are most important in practice? ◦ Public and private key sizes ◦ Key pair generation time ◦ Ciphertext size ◦ Encryption/Decryption speed ◦ Signature size ◦ Signature generation/verification time Not a lot of benchmarks in this area Lattice-based ◦ NTRU Encryption and NTRU Signature ◦ (Ring-based) Learning with Errors Code-based ◦ McEliece encryption and CFS signatures Multivariate ◦ HFE, psFlash , Quartz (a variant of HFE), Many more….